If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

It seems poor gaben isn't aware that PCs aimed at the living room are already out

Nor is anyone else for that matter.

Originally Posted by vinraith

I called that one 4 years ago. The so-called savior of PC gaming will be the death of it yet.

Because PC gaming could never survive another console.

I think it will be a linux box with a modified OS that lets people like Carmack go around the API. If they wanted to be really futuristic they would reduce video streaming lag (look at the Nintendo WiiU as an example of what can be done), use biometric feedback, and includes some AR stuff.

If, is as so often argued, "Valve saved PC gaming" with Steam, then Valve using that influence to drive development for a closed system they control can just as surely damage it severely. Kill it? Probably not, but all those developers that wouldn't survive without Steam have good reason to follow them wherever they go.

This, incidentally, is what happens when one company accrues that level of influence in an industry. Sooner or later, they decide there's no reason to continue sharing with the other children.

Every move Valve has made since Steam was launched has been an attempt to consolidate greater control of the industry. If this quasi-console gambit works (and, fortunately, there's a real chance it won't), then closed architecture (both hardware and software) will undoubtedly be their path forward.

Every move Valve has made since Steam was launched has been an attempt to consolidate greater control of the industry.

Bingo. If Valve hadn't made Half Life and weren't engaging with the community like Robin Walker, they'd be the second EA. Steam is the walled garden of the PC gaming world but we're willingly handing them control because it's Valve.

The irony of this entire thing is that Valve are trying to justify their own Linux-based OS with Steam taking pride of place by saying that they want to get away from Microsoft's Windows Store, which has nothing to do with the desktop and doesn't impact on Steam at all, and their "attempts" to control software distribution. So basically we're swapping one "walled garden" (which doesn't affect x86 apps and never will) for another one (run by Valve).

A Steam OS with their own hardware is just another strategic move to try to corner the market, which could easily backfire and cost Valve a sizable sum of money. The attempts to justify it as a counter to Microsoft's new Windows Store go out the window when you realise that MS aren't trying to compete with Steam and the Windows Store doesn't have anything to do with x86 apps. x86 won't be locked down because it'd be the death of Windows, the vast majority of software and legacy support would disappear overnight. So what possible reason are you left with? To capture more of the market and keep it under Valve's thumb.

Valve may be benevolent at this point in time, but a benevolent monopoly on distribution is still a monopoly, and Valve are pushing hard to be your only choice of distribution. And they won't have to fight very hard because we want them to achieve that level. If it was any other company people would be outraged. If you went back to 2003 and said to us then that Valve want to come out with a store that handles all your PC games distribution, we'd have been concerned. Today we call it utopia.

I love Valve's games as much as the next guy and they're far and away one of the best companies in the PC gaming sector, but we're willingly following the Pied Piper which could lead us into a prison. Valve are first and foremost a business out to make money.

Steam is the walled garden of the PC gaming world but we're willingly handing them control because it's Valve.

Steam is not a walled garden, at least not in the way Apple's systems are. A walled garden is a hardware platform locked to one and only one software source. Steam is not a hardware platform, it's not even a software platform. It's a convenient online store and a mildly irritating DRM system. Nothing more. The only things it distributes exclusively are Valve's products.

Valve can create a walled garden by making a locked hardware platform, installing Steam OS on it and telling everyone "you may never change the contents of this box or else". Then they'll have a walled garden. I see no reason for them to do so.

If Valve is going to use standard PC hardware, I fail to see how that is possible. You can always format the "Valve PC", install a new OS and do what you want with it.

Then why buy it?

Originally Posted by His Master's Voice

Steam is not a walled garden, at least not in the way Apple's systems are.

Nonsense, you're trying to redefine the term. Hardware doesn't have to factor into it though it makes it a lot more restrictive. A walled garden is one where an entity (like Apple, or Amazon, or Valve) control what applications or content or whatnot are provided over their platform. Valve are the gatekeeper for Steam, even with Greenlight, hence it's a walled garden.

Originally Posted by His Master's Voice

It's also not a monopoly in any sense. Not even close.

You're right that it's not (yet) a monopoly, but plenty of PC gamers are pushing for it to become the sole distribution method, as well as being remarkably hostile to other attempts to introduce a digital content distribution system. Even if they never achieve true monopoly status, the way things are going they'd have an effective monopoly on PC gaming since few people are interested in any of the alternatives, and more and more games are being integrated with Steamworks and requiring Steam as a form of DRM. Remember GFWL? Nobody likes it. Steam's palatable because it's got a store that has excellent sales and is one of the less intrusive forms of DRM which is somewhat reliable (since they've fixed offline mode anyway).

On Linux their slice of the pie will be even larger if they find a way to encourage more ports, since they'll effectively be the only game in town. You think people are going to screw around with other sources when Steam can do it all for them? No way.

For the same reason anyone buys ANY pre-made PC? Because they are either stupid or buying something that isn't a desktop.

Nonsense, you're trying to redefine the term. Hardware doesn't have to factor into it though it makes it a lot more restrictive. A walled garden is one where an entity (like Apple, or Amazon, or Valve) control what applications or content or whatnot are provided over their platform. Valve are the gatekeeper for Steam, even with Greenlight, hence it's a walled garden.

That definition is WAY too vague. By the definition you just posited, ANY digital distribution platform is a "walled garden" because the owners tend to want to control what is being sold.

You're right that it's not (yet) a monopoly, but plenty of PC gamers are pushing for it to become the sole distribution method, as well as being remarkably hostile to other attempts to introduce a digital content distribution system. Even if they never achieve true monopoly status, the way things are going they'd have an effective monopoly on PC gaming since few people are interested in any of the alternatives, and more and more games are being integrated with Steamworks and requiring Steam as a form of DRM. Remember GFWL? Nobody likes it. Steam's palatable because it's got a store that has excellent sales and is one of the less intrusive forms of DRM which is somewhat reliable (since they've fixed offline mode anyway).

As a PC gamer who pushes for Steam support, I do it for the following reasons:

1. Most of the other services suck. They have awkward clients that don't provide me any benefit greater than a downloader
2. I know that if something is using Steamworks for MP, then the multiplayer will work. I know that if something is using Steamworks for achievements I (probably) won't need forty different accounts.

On Linux their slice of the pie will be even larger if they find a way to encourage more ports, since they'll effectively be the only game in town. You think people are going to screw around with other sources when Steam can do it all for them? No way.

Then the other services will have to provide a service comparable to Steam? I don't see why I should support a developer whose install instructions include the phrase "Download X from the repository and provide the following parameters to the configuration utility" when I can instead say "Go-go-gadget downloader! Get me some video games!"
That's why Origin has carved out a sizeable niche. Yes, it is required for EA products, but it is also a pretty decent client/service. Desura has yet to be anything other than "the thing you use for indie games that aren't good enough for Steam" because their client is wonky as hell (seriously, every time I open it I have to check every tab before I remember that "play" is where I go to download and install games)..

Steam: Gundato
PSN: Gundato
If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

For the same reason anyone buys ANY pre-made PC? Because they are either stupid or buying something that isn't a desktop.

But that's my point, it's just entering into the crowded market.

Originally Posted by gundato

That definition is WAY too vague. By the definition you just posited, ANY digital distribution platform is a "walled garden" because the owners tend to want to control what is being sold.

Except that's the definition that often is applied because hardware is by no means a requirement. The term itself can even be applied to the old Geocities days.

Originally Posted by gundato

1. Most of the other services suck. They have awkward clients that don't provide me any benefit greater than a downloader

That's a fair point, but nobody's willing to give any of these other services a chance. Steam was terrible when it first launched in 2003. Steam didn't start getting good (by which I mean actually useful and not outright hated) until about 2007. Until then nobody wanted Steam - we all wanted WON to continue but Valve pushed all of us onto their new platform if we wanted MP support. We were forced to use it, we bitched about issues X and Y, and Valve slowly (very slowly) fixed it while keeping us there with sales. It's a fair point to say that the other services don't offer much compared to Steam, but Steam's been around since 2003 and has already been through its teething period. And it was a long period too, and some really basic things like not being able to choose an install location have only shown up recently.

Originally Posted by gundato

I know that if something is using Steamworks for achievements I (probably) won't need forty different accounts.

That's partly a fair point but also illustrates the complacency with having Steam as the sole system. "I don't need to worry about multiple accounts/multiple sources/whatever it's all just there for me." Apply that to any other company and people start to get nervous.

Originally Posted by gundato

Then the other services will have to provide a service comparable to Steam?

Yes, they will. If they fail because their client is terrible then they deserve to fail. But it's like there's a desire to see them fail, that anything that even remotely resembles Steam needs to be shunned because it isn't Steam. People are attached to Steam because it's Valve, and we've had it since 2003. It's well and truly entrenched and Valve have done an excellent job of being the most loved in PC gaming and fortifying that position since 2007.

That's a fair point, but nobody's willing to give any of these other services a chance. Steam was terrible when it first launched in 2003. Steam didn't start getting good (by which I mean actually useful and not outright hated) until about 2007. Until then nobody wanted Steam - we all wanted WON to continue but Valve pushed all of us onto their new platform if we wanted MP support. We were forced to use it, we bitched about issues X and Y, and Valve slowly (very slowly) fixed it while keeping us there with sales. It's a fair point to say that the other services don't offer much compared to Steam, but Steam's been around since 2003 and has already been through its teething period. And it was a long period too, and some really basic things like not being able to choose an install location have only shown up recently.

Doesn't matter.

If I see a service that is as crappy as Steam was during the CS 1.6 years, I won't use it. Because those developers should know better by now

That's partly a fair point but also illustrates the complacency with having Steam as the sole system. "I don't need to worry about multiple accounts/multiple sources/whatever it's all just there for me." Apply that to any other company and people start to get nervous.

A lot of people prefer to buy cars from a single manufacturer because they like the quality:cost ratio.
I generally buy all the same brand of kitchen appliances because they last long, are cheap, and have user interfaces I don't have to read a manual for (even with a microwave!)

Why should that be any different for the serivce I buy games from?

Yes, they will. If they fail because their client is terrible then they deserve to fail. But it's like there's a desire to see them fail, that anything that even remotely resembles Steam needs to be shunned because it isn't Steam. People are attached to Steam because it's Valve, and we've had it since 2003. It's well and truly entrenched and Valve have done an excellent job of being the most loved in PC gaming and fortifying that position since 2007.

There are just as many fanboys for Valve as there are fanboys against Valve. It mostly boils down to "they provide the best service at this point in time". It is the same thing that happened with the OS wars of the 90s:
Microsoft had a "monopoly" because they provided the best OS. Maybe Mac and whatever Linux distros were around got a few things better, but MS Windows was the overall best. When Apple got their stuff together, they started tearing people away.

Brand loyalty only goes so far. When there is a better product out there, people will buy it.

I'm not going to give Desura or Origin a handicap because Steam is better. I'm going to use whatever is the best service out there.

Doesn't matter. If I see a service that is as crappy as Steam was during the CS 1.6 years, I won't use it. Because those developers should know better by now.

But some things (like server issues/downtime etc) only ever resolve following extended use of a program with bug reports. How are you going to get that if nobody gives it a chance? I'm not aware of many online services that didn't have teething problems in their early days.

Originally Posted by gundato

Why should that be any different for the serivce I buy games from?

Why was I screamed at because I said I didn't care if AMD died because their CPUs weren't meeting the needs of the market? Why did people run with GabeN's (largely scare-mongering) statements about Windows 8? Why is a monopoly always seen as a bad thing? Why don't people like having to log into everything with Facebook? How much longer do you want me to carry on?

It illustrates that people will stick to something and ignore alternatives not necessarily because alternatives are bad (though in this case I agree that nobody's yet to match Steam, but the bulk of Steam's appeal comes from its catalog of games and sales) but because they're already tied to Steam and don't want to leave. How do you fight that? You've already got a big, black mark against you because you're not Steam.

Originally Posted by gundato

Brand loyalty only goes so far. When there is a better product out there, people will buy it.

Except Steam is so heavily entrenched that getting people to even consider a different service is an issue. You said you've been sticking with the same kitchen appliance retailer. Have you tried the alternatives lately? Have you considered them? Considered them enough to use them? Or just running on a "Oh well that doesn't look different it must be the same let's ignore it" mindset.

Originally Posted by gundato

I'm not going to give Desura or Origin a handicap because Steam is better. I'm going to use whatever is the best service out there.

I don't expect you to, and again I said that I agree that those services (moreso Desura, Origin's given me less trouble in its short life compared to Steam over its 9 year lifespan) have issues. But by way of comparison I was screamed at because I said that I didn't care if AMD fell down and died because they can't put out a CPU that adequately competes with Intel's offerings, so why should a potential or hypothetical Steam monopoly be any different? Is it the emotional attachment to Valve as a benevolent developer and not a business?

Originally Posted by gundato

The fact that people at all use it for things other than ME3 and BF3 should say wonders because, like you said, its EA.

They don't really have a choice unless they don't want to play it, which is basically what Valve did back when WON shut down. That doesn't mean people like it, or accept it, or actually want to use it.

But some things (like server issues/downtime etc) only ever resolve following extended use of a program with bug reports. How are you going to get that if nobody gives it a chance? I'm not aware of many online services that didn't have teething problems in their early days.

Beta programs where you provide incentives to your users to give it a shot? Not trying to be a huge mega-store until you have made sure it works with smaller inventories?

Why was I screamed at because I said I didn't care if AMD died because their CPUs weren't meeting the needs of the market? Why did people run with GabeN's (largely scare-mongering) statements about Windows 8? Why is a monopoly always seen as a bad thing? Why don't people like having to log into everything with Facebook? How much longer do you want me to carry on?

It illustrates that people will stick to something and ignore alternatives not necessarily because alternatives are bad (though in this case I agree that nobody's yet to match Steam, but the bulk of Steam's appeal comes from its catalog of games and sales) but because they're already tied to Steam and don't want to leave. How do you fight that? You've already got a big, black mark against you because you're not Steam.

Okay, but in this case, the alternatives pretty much ARE bad. When we have something good, then you can complain about favoritism.

Except Steam is so heavily entrenched that getting people to even consider a different service is an issue. You said you've been sticking with the same kitchen appliance retailer. Have you tried the alternatives lately? Have you considered them? Considered them enough to use them? Or just running on a "Oh well that doesn't look different it must be the same let's ignore it" mindset.

So I should actively make more trouble for myself by trying something new if it doesn't offer anything beneficial?

When I bought a new microwave a few months back, I took a brief look at my options, saw none of them were anything special, and stuck with the brand I know is good.

I don't expect you to, and again I said that I agree that those services (moreso Desura, Origin's given me less trouble in its short life compared to Steam over its 9 year lifespan) have issues. But by way of comparison I was screamed at because I said that I didn't care if AMD fell down and died because they can't put out a CPU that adequately competes with Intel's offerings, so why should a potential or hypothetical Steam monopoly be any different? Is it the emotional attachment to Valve as a benevolent developer and not a business?

So two wrongs make a right?

Pretty much the only thing you have right is this: Right now, if a service is equally as good as Steam (or doesn't distinguish itself), people won't try it. But that is CORRECT. Because if they want to compete, they have to try and out-do their competitor.

They don't really have a choice unless they don't want to play it, which is basically what Valve did back when WON shut down. That doesn't mean people like it, or accept it, or actually want to use it.

Based on checking CAG and the threads here, quite a few people have purchased non-mandatory Origin games from Origin (I haven't, but that is because I am American). Assuming that both communities make up a decent sample, that means Origin is getting some decent sales figures. Not as good as Steam (probably), but still decent.

Steam: Gundato
PSN: Gundato
If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

you think valve is going into the console business? Spending hundreds of millions in cpu, co-processor and prefab contracts and subsidising the whole thing? LOL

Tell me, do you even read posts or do you just make up some little interpretation and assume it's correct?

Originally Posted by gundato

Beta programs where you provide incentives to your users to give it a shot? Not trying to be a huge mega-store until you have made sure it works with smaller inventories?

And never get noticed while Steam basically stomps around with its mega-catalog?

Originally Posted by gundato

Okay, but in this case, the alternatives pretty much ARE bad. When we have something good, then you can complain about favoritism.

Origin isn't really bad though, it had a pretty decent release with a client that could cope with installing games to a different directory for a start. Even before it launched though people were shunning it because EA is bad, always. People were opposed to EA starting up their own store to publish their own games through their own digital distribution method... despite the fact that Valve did the exact same thing.

Originally Posted by gundato

So I should actively make more trouble for myself by trying something new if it doesn't offer anything beneficial? When I bought a new microwave a few months back, I took a brief look at my options, saw none of them were anything special, and stuck with the brand I know is good.

A cursory glance though is pretty much all that happens here, and it boils down to "It's not Steam so it mustn't be any good." How, as a new entrant, are you going to go up against Steam? I'd be genuinely interested to hear how you'd tackle it.

Originally Posted by gundato

So two wrongs make a right?

No? I'm just commenting on how absurd PC gamers can be when it comes to Valve/Steam. Monopoly = bad... unless it's Valve, then it's the promised land.

Originally Posted by gundato

Pretty much the only thing you have right is this: Right now, if a service is equally as good as Steam (or doesn't distinguish itself), people won't try it. But that is CORRECT. Because if they want to compete, they have to try and out-do their competitor.

Actually what I'm saying is that pretty much any competitor will never even reach that stage because nobody will consider another service that aims to do what Steam does. GoG for example only exists because it has a niche market. Desura is by and large entirely redundant. If Steam decided to take up old games too, GoG would be destroyed overnight, even if it had a client similar to Steam and Steam didn't pack in the extras that GoG offer. Steam really is too big to take on as it is.

Originally Posted by gundato

Based on checking CAG and the threads here, quite a few people have purchased non-mandatory Origin games from Origin (I haven't, but that is because I am American). Assuming that both communities make up a decent sample, that means Origin is getting some decent sales figures. Not as good as Steam (probably), but still decent.

But that doesn't mean acceptance of the 2nd distribution platform. There are still lots of people complaining that Origin doesn't need to exist and that Steam should be all we need. Even the people violently opposed to DRM will accept Steam even though it is still a form of DRM.

Origin isn't really bad though, it had a pretty decent release with a client that could cope with installing games to a different directory for a start. Even before it launched though people were shunning it because EA is bad, always. People were opposed to EA starting up their own store to publish their own games through their own digital distribution method... despite the fact that Valve did the exact same thing.

not to derail the thread, but the bolded part of the quote above is pretty dependant on where you live. When compared to Steam, Origin pricing/sales are atrocious if you don't live in the UK/USA. As far as I can tell, all the prices are listed in USD, and are still over inflated nonsense, on top of that, I've never once seen a worthwhile sale in the version of the store front they offer me.

correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the arguement so far is: People trust Valve, and as yet, they haven't done anything to betray that trust. What you and Vinrath are saying is that Valve are in good position to, and could well betray it in the future.

That said I think the bigger issue is what you said about people with the mindset of "but all my games are already on Steam!" as it's true and worrying, because that's only going to get worse the longer/more Steam is used.

As far as I can tell, all the prices are listed in USD, and are still over inflated nonsense, on top of that, I've never once seen a worthwhile sale in the version of the store front they offer me.

I live in Australia and the Steam store prices are also in USD, and plenty of publishers on Steam set outrageous prices which means it's often the same price to buy it in stores (or cheaper if our dollar is weak), and almost always cheaper to import. Origin have had a few decent sales but they aren't selling anything that I really want so I hardly ever bother. They did give me a discount code on my birthday though, so...?

Originally Posted by Wheelz

correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the arguement so far is: People trust Valve, and as yet, they haven't done anything to betray that trust. What you and Vinrath are saying is that Valve are in good position to, and could well betray it in the future.

Sort of. That is a factor because Valve have done an outstanding job of playing up the "We made Half Life! We made TF2! We made hats a thing!" side of their company and using that to entrench Steam even further. People seem to forget that Valve are a business and are out to make money. If another company (let's say EA for example) were pushing with their distribution system like Valve run Steam, there would be at least nervous glances or possibly angry rejection. Valve might betray their customers, but I doubt it (at least for the foreseeable future) but it's a lot of power whichever way you look at it. "Betrayal" in the gaming world is remarkably easy to do though, if the Steam forums are anything to go by...

Originally Posted by Wheelz

That said I think the bigger issue is what you said about people with the mindset of "but all my games are already on Steam!" as it's true and worrying, because that's only going to get worse the longer/more Steam is used.

Exactly, there's no competition, and no competitor will reach the critical mass required to challenge Steam, no matter how much more they offer. People are already heavily invested in Steam, and Valve know that. They're going to use that to leverage their own OS and lock you into their world. Sadly, we're going to go willingly.

Exactly, there's no competition, and no competitor will reach the critical mass required to challenge Steam, no matter how much more they offer. People are already heavily invested in Steam, and Valve know that. They're going to use that to leverage their own OS and lock you into their world. Sadly, we're going to go willingly.

With OSs that are important for productivity software, there's a strong argument for trust-busting or, barring that, nationalizing, as some do with ISPs or landline networks. Either way, there's heavy government involvement as the systems are too important and too necessary to be left solely in the hands of one dominating private corporation.

We're still, however, talking about luxury entertainment, which is not so necessary.

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

And never get noticed while Steam basically stomps around with its mega-catalog?

I'd like to note that when Valve started Steam, they didn't have a lot of games to sell on their own. You gotta start somewhere. If exclusive games aren't your hook, then stellar service better be.

Originally Posted by soldant

Origin isn't really bad though, it had a pretty decent release with a client that could cope with installing games to a different directory for a start. Even before it launched though people were shunning it because EA is bad, always. People were opposed to EA starting up their own store to publish their own games through their own digital distribution method... despite the fact that Valve did the exact same thing.

I think the relevant EA IS BAD tiff that people had back then was EA yanking games that had been made available on Steam and the back-and-forth wordmongering between Valve and EA about control and DLC. It'd be like... if Dr. Pepper suddenly yanked its drink from all restaurants and saying "we're only selling Dr. Pepper at our own stores now". Didn't we also have a recent scream and shout about Betheda/id yanking Doom3 off Steam?

That said, Origin isn't horrible, but other than ME3 I haven't found a good reason to buy games off of that instead of Steam, mostly as the interface is still wonky for me.

Originally Posted by soldant

A cursory glance though is pretty much all that happens here, and it boils down to "It's not Steam so it mustn't be any good." How, as a new entrant, are you going to go up against Steam? I'd be genuinely interested to hear how you'd tackle it.

I'm going to give you a different answer from the typical "excellent service" one. You go to Nintendo, secure the exclusive rights to distribute SNES/N64/Gamecube/Wii games on PC through your platform, you frolic in the stupid amount of money people give you hand-over-fist for Zelda games.

Originally Posted by soldant

No? I'm just commenting on how absurd PC gamers can be when it comes to Valve/Steam. Monopoly = bad... unless it's Valve, then it's the promised land.

Actually what I'm saying is that pretty much any competitor will never even reach that stage because nobody will consider another service that aims to do what Steam does. GoG for example only exists because it has a niche market. Desura is by and large entirely redundant. If Steam decided to take up old games too, GoG would be destroyed overnight, even if it had a client similar to Steam and Steam didn't pack in the extras that GoG offer. Steam really is too big to take on as it is.

I refuse to hand-hold a service that doesn't live up to my now-higher expectations of service, catalog appeal, and flexibility. If a new service comes along, hey, welcome to the club, nice to meet you, whatcha got? Oh I got all those things, can I redeem on here? No? Okay, what else you got? Hrm, well, let me know when you got you shit together, good luck! I'm sorry, but you gotta bring your A Game to the party. I'm used to these standards, and have been for a long time. You get 30 minutes of doe-eyed innocence and tolerance before I come down on your like a wicker basket full of fucking snakes. You want my business? Come and get it. Till then, I'm going to stick to what I like, which is Steam, Cherry Dr. Pepper, Whataburger Patty Melts, and indestructible Toyota pickup trucks.

Originally Posted by Nalano

We're still, however, talking about luxury entertainment, which is not so necessary.